Ukraine should be left to forge its own course

A key principle of liberal politics is self-determination. Step forward the people of Ukraine – not Washington or London

A woman casts her vote at in Donetsk, Ukraine, in May 2014. 'While Russia’s behaviour in Crimea and Ukraine has been crude and belligerent, it has rested on local consent'. Photograph: Alexander Ermochenko/Rex

Last night's Ukraine referendum yields not one crisis but two. The first is separatist pressure of the sort that has long plagued the politics of Europe. A poorly drawn border, an ethnic or linguistic minority, an inept central government – all lead to revolt. Resolution lies either in devolution and confederation or in partition and independence. Witness Ireland, Kosovo, Slovakia and Macedonia, and perhaps the Basques, the Catalans and the Scots.

The second crisis is more dangerous. It is when such local conflicts acquire outside sponsors; when they translate into the big power politics. They become test-your-weight machines for heads of state. Intervention is what "real men" do; something "must be done". That is now happening in Ukraine.

The primary player is Russia's Vladimir Putin. He tasted glory in Crimea, clearly responding to popular will following 2014's coup against an elected leader in Kiev. Now eastern Ukraine has shown, by however ramshackle a referendum, an upsurge in separatist sentiment by the strongly pro-Russian population. Putin is happy to exploit such sentiment.

Ukraine has thus become a straightforward test of western machismo. President Obama is vilified for not taking a tougher stance; the EU is criticised as halfhearted; British politicians pontificate about what is "acceptable"; Nato is on guard. Horrific parallels are drawn with Sarajevo in 1914 and Sudetenland in 1939.

A fundamental principle of liberal politics is self-determination. It was for this that Britain went to war in the Falklands and Kosovo, and – so Tony Blair later said – in Iraq. It is for this that David Cameron tolerates a referendum in Scotland and proposes one on the EU. It is a sound principle, and one that should not be discredited.

While Russia's behaviour in Crimea and Ukraine has been crude and belligerent, it has rested on local consent. The regime in Kiev clearly has to accommodate a classic separatist movement within its borders. A new status for eastern Ukraine is vital – but that is Ukraine's business and, given the apparent views of local people, inevitably Russia's business.

This is not Sarajevo or Sudetenland. It is not the business of Washington or London or Brussels. When distant powers feel justified in intervening against the will of peoples, motives get mixed and serious wars begin.